- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:31851-DB WP No. 12098 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 18TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2025 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. V. ARAVIND WRIT PETITION No. 12098 OF 2025 (S-KSAT) BETWEEN: 1. SRI HARISH R., S/O RAMANNA, AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, PANCHAYAT DEVELOPMENT OFFICER, SURAGAJAKHANAHALLI GRAM PANCHAYAT, ANEKAL TALUK, BENGALURU URBAN DISTRICT. RESIDING AT No.165, 2ND CROSS, RAJIVGANDHINAGARA, BENGALURU- 560096. …PETITIONER (BY SRI SATISH M. DODDAMANI, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR SRI SAGAR B. B., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE COMMISSIONER, PANCHAYAT RAJ COMMISSIONARATE, RURAL DEVELOPMENT AND PANCHAYAT RAJ DEPARTMENT, K.G. ROAD, BENGALURU- 560001. 2. THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, AND DISCIPLINARY AUTHORITY, Digitally signed by VALLI MARIMUTHU Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:31851-DB WP No. 12098 of 2025 ZILLA PANCHAYAT, BENGALURU URBAN DISTRICT, K.G. ROAD, BENGALURU- 560001. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI V. SHIVAREDDY, AGA FOR R1; SRI MAHESH R UPPIN, ADVOCATE FOR C/R2) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASHING THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 21.03.2025 PASSED IN APPLICATION No.561/2025 IN VIDE ANNEXURE-B, PASSED BY THE HON'BLE KARNATAKA STATE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL BANGALORE AND CONSEQUENTLY ALLOW THE APPLICATION No.561/2025. THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT and HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. V. ARAVIND ORAL ORDER (PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT) The petitioner, a Panchayat Development Officer (PDO), who is under suspension, is before this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, questioning the correctness or otherwise of the order dated 21.03.2025 passed in Application No.561/2025 by the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal, Bengaluru (for short 'Tribunal'), dismissing his challenge to the - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:31851-DB WP No. 12098 of 2025 order of suspension dated 06.02.2025 (Annexure-A.6 to the application). 2. Heard Sri Satish M. Doddamani, learned Senior counsel for Sri B.B. Sagar, learned counsel for the petitioner; Sri V. Shivareddy, learned Additional Government Advocate for the respondent No.1 and Sri Mahesh R. Uppin, learned counsel for respondent No.2. Perused the entire writ petition papers. 3. Learned Senior counsel Sri Satish M. Doddamani would urge one and only ground i.e., even after the expiry of six months, the suspension of the petitioner is not revoked nor charge memo is issued as required under Rule 10(5) of the Karnataka Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1957 [hereinafter referred to as 'CCA Rules' for short]. Learned Senior counsel would submit that the petitioner was suspended on 06.02.2025 and immediately thereafter, he approached the Tribunal in Application No.561/2025 and the Tribunal under the impugned order dated 21.03.2025 rejected the application placing reliance on the decision of the Co- ordinate Bench of this Court in W.P.No.32749/2024, dated - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:31851-DB WP No. 12098 of 2025 05.12.2024. Learned Senior counsel would further submit that the proposition of law laid down in the said decision is opposed to the CCA Rules and as such, the Tribunal could not have followed the said decision. 4. We are not inclined to accede to the contention that Tribunal could not have relied upon the decision in the above stated writ petition. The said contention can be examined in an appropriate proceeding. However, we are inclined to examine the contention of learned Senior counsel for the petitioner that the suspension of the petitioner ought to have been revoked as no charge memo is issued within six months as required under Rule 10(5) (b) of the CCA Rules. Rule 10(5)(b) of the Rules reads as follows; "10(5)(b) If departmental inquiry is not commenced against the delinquent Government Servant or charge- sheet is not filed in the court within a period of six months from suspension, the competent authority shall decide whether to revoke or continue suspension of such Government Servant and unless decided and ordered for continuation within this period, the suspension shall be deemed to have been revoked i.e., from the date of completion of a period of six months from the date of suspension. Upon such revocation of - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:31851-DB WP No. 12098 of 2025 the order of his suspension, it shall be the duty of the Government servant to immediately seek order of posting from the Appointing Authority, failing which he shall be deemed to be on unauthorized absence with effect from the date of revocation of the order of his suspension. Provided that the authority competent to place a Government Servant under Suspension may extend the period of suspension beyond the period specified in this clause, only after consulting, within the said period, with the authority referred in clause (a) only if such authority recommends extension within the said period. Otherwise, the order placing the Government Servant under suspension shall stand revoked automatically under this clause." 5. Admittedly, the charge memo is not issued on the allegation on which the petitioner is kept under suspension. As on this date, it is more than six months keeping the petitioner under suspension. In terms of the above Rule, as no charge memo is issued, the suspension is deemed to have been revoked on completion of the period of six months from the date of suspension. In terms of the above Rule, the respondents shall have to pass a formal order of revocation of suspension. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:31851-DB WP No. 12098 of 2025 6. In light of the above, the following order; (i) Writ petition is disposed of. (ii) In terms of Rule 10(5)(b) of the Karnataka Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1957, respondent No.2 is directed to pass orders revoking the order of suspension of the petitioner. (iii) Respondent No. 2 shall comply with this order within two weeks from today. (iv) This order would not preclude the respondents from issuing charge memo to the petitioner. Sd/- (S.G.PANDIT) JUDGE Sd/- (K. V. ARAVIND) JUDGE MV List No.: 1 Sl No.: 37